Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds a genuinely informative behavior: 'Each cell is copied or counted, never scored' and 'as published' nuance, clarifying that the tool presents data rather than evaluates it. This exceeds basic read-only disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, action-first, with no wasted words. Each phrase ('bridge size', 'O*NET demand', 'evidence classes') earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a comparison tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently explains the comparison dimensions and the non-scoring behavior. The missing usage-vs-alternatives guidance is minor and does not prevent correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and examples. The description adds domain context by framing to_socs as 'destination occupations' and from_soc as 'one occupation', but it largely restates the schema semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'line up' and names the resource 'destination occupations' plus the exact attributes compared (bridge size, O*NET demand, evidence classes). It distinguishes itself from compare_program_checklists by focusing on occupation destinations rather than checklists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for comparing 2–6 destination occupations from a single source occupation, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It gives clear operational context (what is compared) but no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.